The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Friday sought the President of India’s approval to prosecute former Delhi minister and AAP leader Satyendar Jain under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in the alleged disproportionate assets were to the tune of Rs 1.47 crore, about 217 per cent more than Jain’s known sources of income during 2015-17.
The Pioneer was the first to report the disproportionate assets case.
The agency alleged that Jain, with the help of his family members and associates, amassed disproportionate assets between February 14, 2015, and May 31, 2017, while serving as a minister in the Delhi government.
Jain lost Shakur Basti seat to BJP’s Karnail Singh by a margin of 20,998 votes. According to sources, the request is based on evidence provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has found sufficient grounds for prosecution in the case. “On the basis of the material received from the Enforcement Directorate, sufficient evidence has been found to grant the sanction”, sources said. The MHA’s move comes after reviewing findings from the ED’s investigation into alleged financial irregularities linked to Jain. The final decision now rests with the President.
The ED’s case against Jain stems from a 2017 FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Section 13(2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) read with Section 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The ED further claimed that several companies owned and controlled by Jain received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.8 crore from shell companies in exchange for cash routed through Kolkata-based hawala operators. Two other accused, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, were said to be major shareholders and directors in three of these companies. The Delhi high court had recently dismissed their default bail pleas on October 1.
Jain walked out of Tihar Jail on October 18, receiving a warm welcome from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders and supporters. He was granted bail by a city court in a money laundering case being investigated by the federal agency (ED), which said there was “no likelihood” of the trial starting, let alone being completed.
The court highlighted the importance of individual liberty, particularly in cases governed by stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Manish Sisodia case, which underscored the fundamental right to a speedy trial. Jain’s counsel, senior advocate N Hariharan and advocate Vivek Jain, argued that he had spent 18 months in custody, while former Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia, arrested in the alleged excise policy scam, had spent 17 months before being granted bail. They pointed out that the case involves 108 witnesses and over 5,000 pages of documents, making the trial a lengthy process.
Opposing the bail plea, the ED contended that Jain could influence witnesses if released. However, the court imposed strict conditions, barring him from travelling outside India without permission, contacting witnesses, or influencing the trial in any way.
Jain’s legal team also cited previous judgments in interim PMLA cases where bail had been granted despite stringent conditions. They noted that almost all accused in the Delhi excise policy case, which allegedly involves hundreds of crores, have been granted bail.
Last month, Assistant Superintendent Jaidev and Deputy Superintendent Parveen Kumar, Tihar Jail, had complained against Jain in an ‘incident report’ on December 8, 2022, that when they went to serve a Show Cause Notice to Jain as per rule 1272 of DPR, 2018, he threatened them.
Jain has been blatantly intimidating these officers and others for their acts trying to prevent him from availing facilities of massage, lavish food and other VIP treatments, that came to the fore recently, said a jail official.
A jail official stated in his complaint that, “at that time he (undersigned), assumed that Satyendar Jain said this because of frustration, but in view of the latest incident report dated December 8, 2022, he has apprehension that Jain, being a minister may take adverse action against him and other jail officials, once he comes out of the jail.”
“In view of the above, it is requested that Satyendar Jain may be transferred to some other jail at the earliest,” read the complaint.
